Adherence to a correct view of human rights is a basic prerequisite for the modernization of judicial protection of human rights.The view of human rights protection in criminal justice in China, through developments in the field of human rights protection in criminal justice since the new era, is not only an important part of the correct view of human rights, but also an important theoretical support for the construction and improvement of China's human rights protection system in criminal justice, which should be consistently upheld and developed.China's view of human rights protection in criminal justice has given birth to a set of practical logics for modernizing human rights protection in criminal justice with very local characteristics: leading synergistic governance through leadership of the Communist Party of China, laying down the direction of development through criminal policy, constructing a specific system through legislative reform, and realizing the functioning of the system through a balance of values.On this basis, the modernization of human rights protection in criminal justice in China has made historic achievements that show Chinese style and manner, and manifest the Chinese model.However, with the profound transformation of social contradictions, the rapid development of the rule of law in relation to foreign countries, the unique needs of misdemeanour governance, and the wide application of digital technology in criminal justice, the modernization of China's criminal justice human rights protection is still faced with a series of new risks and challenges, and it remains an unfinished reform project.In the process of striving to promote Chinese path to modernization, in order to fully realize the modernization of human rights protection in China's criminal justice, a systematic response programmatic should be put forward from the dimensions of firming ideological orientation, strengthening theoretical supply, perfecting institutional construction and optimizing practical operation.

According to the evolution principle of the international community and the corresponding types of international law, the new type of cooperative partnership between countries in the construction of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind and the inherent principle of Mutual Benefit and Win-win results in building a “Super-cooperative International Law”, which demonstrates the historical progress of the traditional cooperative international law dominated by developed countries.According to the double dimension theory of international cooperation, the advanced nature of “Super-cooperative International Law” is manifested as both the function of increasing income and expanding cooperation productivity, and the character of giving consideration to both justice and profit and improving the distribution of cooperation.In accordance with the logic of international system competition, China has chosen the strategy of “reforming the existing regimes” and “creating the new regimes” respectively within and outside the international governance system dominated by developed countries, and The Belt and Road Initiative is becoming the most important platform for the centralized creation of such international legal regimes.

Analyzing the evolution and characteristics of Chinese international law thought from a historical perspective is a key component in constructing China's independent knowledge system in international law.During the late Qing period, one notable feature of Chinese international law thought was its prominent natural law orientation, which stood in sharp contrast to the positivist ideas dominant in contemporary Western thought.Existing studies often attribute this to W.A.P.Martin's translation of Wheaton's Elements of International Law.However, these studies have relatively overlooked the more complex historical context underlying late Qing international law thought.Beyond Wheaton's work, the translation and introduction of Theodore Dwight Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law also significantly contributed to the natural law imagination in late Qing international law thought by incorporating Confucian concepts such as xing and li.This natural-law-based approach to international law was further developed through the indigenous construction efforts of late Qing intellectual elites like Guo Songtao and Zeng Jize, gaining even greater influence.The traditional Chinese legal cultural concepts embedded in this thought provide valuable intellectual insights for China as it seeks to reconstruct its subjectivity in international law discourse.

The digitized reconstruction of administrative rule of law will realize a unified technological dominance over traditional administrative powers and the rights of administrative counterparts, but it remains adhering to humanistic jurisprudence.It prohibits breaching neither the humanism-based theory of administrative legal relationship subjects, nor the principles of determining and attributing administrative legal responsibility based on free will.The depersonalization logic inherent in the transition from face-to-face administration to interface administration aligns with the evolutionary trend of the rule of law towards objectifying subjective law enforcement.Through the codification of enforcement norms, the technologization of intermediary elements, and the depersonalization of enforcement scenarios, administrative rule of law achieve a digital twin.Its legitimacy and justification rely on the security and reliability of automated systems, the scientific quantification of administrative discretion, and the social consensus on the algorithmic operation of administrative regulations.Procedural legality and substantive justice are the legal cornerstones for realizing these objectives.

The phenomenon of inadequate response of the traditional legal systems to dealing with data ownership issues is due to the novel characteristics of data as a legal object.In the discussion of data ownership, there is a collision of values among different sectoral laws, and traditional legal theories are struggling to fully address the issue of data interest distribution.Facing these challenges, the constitutional law needs to play a role in fixing the deficiencies in the traditional legal system.Moreover, as a highly socialized new factor of production, the design of the legal framework for data utilization cannot be separated from the guidance of the constitutional law.Against the backdrop of market economy of Chinese characteristics, when handling data ownership, various government also involve their own interests.This further underscores the need for the constitutional law to intervene.Data ownership issues simultaneously involve the first and second order consensus in the constitutional law.Different positions in issues of data ownership can find support in the constitutional law's first order consensus system, but resolving the issue requires the full application of second order consensus to balance the demands of various stakeholders, and to establish a mutual possession system which promotes the acquisition and utilization of data.

Enterprise data-secured financing involves two methods: data rights pledge loans and data asset mortgage loans.Data rights pledge loan is a way for enterprises to exchange the value of data property rights for bank financing.Data asset mortgage loan focuses on the economic value and liquidity of data, allowing for non-transfer of possession while balancing the repayment needs of the mortgagee and the data utilization needs of the mortgagor.Data guarantees should rely on registration as a validity condition, currently achievable through mutual recognition among various data trading platforms, enabling rights publicity and ownership inquiries.The amount of data financing loan is influenced by the spot price p, total collateral q, and collateral rate α.Given the volatility of p, data valuation should reflect the value range of data across multiple prioritized application scenarios, with valuation agencies highlighting the risks of value fluctuation.To prevent depreciation of collateralized data due to time sensitivity, a dynamic data pledge approach is recommended, allowing the pledgor to utilize and update the data during the pledge period, representing a superior option for data financing.

The concept of declaration of intent can only apply to natural persons.The term “declaration of intent by legal persons” only has descriptive significance and does not constitute a legal dogmatic concept; therefore, it cannot be split into internal intent and external declaration of the legal person.Legal persons can only undertake legal transactions through representation or agency mechanism.The nature of legal representation should be understood as statutory organ agency.The flaw in China's legal representation system lies in its separation of representative and executive organs, dividing representative and executive power.Although the theory of unity of organs and authorities cannot change the current legal status of organ separation, it still helps define the scope of legal representative power in legal dogmatics, thus facilitating the understanding of legal representative power restrictions.The “duty agency” system, first introduced in the General Provisions of Civil Law and later inherited by the Civil Code, is not a successful legislative design and should be replaced by potential typological rules in the future.

As the latest evolution of standard terms in the era of digital economy, the platform protocol, with characters of unilateral willingness, behavior disciplining and closed-loop implementation, has lost the function of transaction intermediary, rather it should be regarded as a power tool to construct and maintain private order.Therefore, the key to the regulation of platform protocol is to avoid abuse of private power.Under the empowerment of digital technology, the expanding private power of platform will threaten the market efficiency and the basic rights of citizens, which leads to the consequence of public derogatory.In order to activate the public nature of private power, the legal system has evolved a series of public regulatory arrangements from fair price regulation, to public carrier, and then to public utility regulation, which can provide reference for the regulation of private power behind the platform protocol.The scope of public regulation for platform protocol should cross-examine the demand side and the supply side, taking comprehensive consideration of demand side factors including the non-competition, multi-use, demand derivation and the supply side factors including idealistic and realistic competition constraints.The regulatory scheme should follow the structuralist idea of procedural control, enhance the openness and participation of the platform protocol drafting process, and embed procedural requirements to eliminate bias and to listen to public opinions for the implementation of the platform protocol.The supervisory department should carry out external meta-regulation on the self-regulation activities of the platform's implementation of above-mentioned procedural control.

In recent years, with the surge in the number of cases of the offence of aiding cyber-related criminal activities, the academic community has generated widespread concern about the “pocketing” of this offence, and the dispute over the normative attribute of this offence has gradually evolved into a dispute over its existence and abolition, which urgently requires a timely and adequate response from criminal law theories.Through the empirical analysis of 1796 criminal judgments on the offence of aiding cyber-related criminal activities in a city in central China from 2021 to 2023, it can be found that the activities of aiding cyber-related criminal activities are becoming more and more diversified, and the constitutive acts of this offence have been divided into three types: organized, potentially organized and with no clues pointing to organized.Judicial practice and the existing academic viewpoints lack an understanding of the structural differentiation of the act of this offence, and therefore face many obstacles in application.By clarifying that the normative attribute of this offence is substantive preparatory offence, and the types of its constituent elements have been divided into organized and unorganized ones, the relationship between this offence and the complicity of the upstream offence, and the relationship between this offence and the related offences can be accurately determined, the criminal liability of the participants of the activities of aiding cyber-related criminal activities can be distributed, and the boundary of criminalization can be delineated based on the objective and subjective judgement criteria of substantive preparatory offence.

China's judicial practice in dealing with commercial-criminal cross-cutting cases is marked by the phenomenon of different procedural rules being applied by courts at the same level to similar cases, and by courts at higher and lower levels to the same cases, which not only affects the procedures of the judiciary, but may also result in the wrong definition of commercial crime and the loss of rights and interests of the subject of the commercial case.According to the mutual influence of civil and commercial cases and criminal cases, commercial-criminal intersection cases can be divided into three types: competing criminal cases affecting the nature of civil and commercial cases, implicated criminal cases and civil and commercial cases not affecting each other, but related, and subordinate civil and commercial cases affecting the nature of criminal cases.Those cases should apply the procedural rules of criminal before commercial, commercial-criminal in parallel, and commercial before criminal, respectively.Competing commercial-criminal crossover cases need to satisfy the ‘same facts’ requirement that the subject of the act is the same as the core act, and those that do not satisfy the dual requirement but are only implicated in a few constituent elements are implicated commercial-criminal cross-over cases.The procedural rules for commercial-criminal cross-border cases are already substantially typified, and there is no need to be rules-based and set up a number of exceptions to avoid the problems of unfairness, inefficiency and irrationality brought about by the principle-based approach.

Currently, the case of death caused by a failed takeover by a human-machine co-driver is in the spotlight, and there is a controversy between affirmative and negative theories as to whether a safety officer can claim the principle of reliance and not be held liable for negligence even though he or she failed to fulfill the duty to take over.From the affirmative view, human-machine trust is built on the basis that AI trustworthiness-machines have autonomy, agency, and human-centered intentionality, and favors human trust in machines.The application of the principle of reliance to the highly compartmentalized, high-risk human-machine trust is an extension of the organizational model that does not lead to dilution of responsibility, but is more in line with the nature of criminal responsibility, and possesses reasonableness.When the exception to the principle of reliance negates negligence liability, the equivalence of reliance can be specifically judged by using the safety officer, the autopilot system, and the human-machine interaction at different levels of autopilot as objective factors.The safety officer's behavior of failing to fulfill the obligation to take over has an objective illegality, but when he reasonably trusts that the automatic driving system can perform the expected function, he cannot specifically foresee the occurrence of the result, thus the principle of reliance negates negligence in the stage of liability, and plays a role in the allocation of the results of the back-end risk.

Although the rule of assumption of risk has been generally recognized by judges, the academic circles and practical field still have doubts about the value judgment of “participants only bear responsibility for intentional or gross negligence”.The self-risk-taking activity is not an exemption excuse, and the rule of assumption of risk is essentially the embodiment of the fault liability principle in the field of self-risk-taking activities in sports and entertainment activities.There is a significant difference in the normative evaluation of participants' fault between self-risk-taking activities in sports and entertainment activities and other self-risk-taking activities.The former not only weakens the participants' duty of care, but also negates the common sense idea that self-risk-taking itself should be evaluated as the victim's fault.Although there is no problem in the legislative technique perspective of the rule of assumption of risk, the strict application of the “gross negligence standard” may lead to the imbalance of interests among participants.In terms of China's legislative tradition, social reality and the coordination of the interests of the parties, when it is obviously difficult for the victim to bear the damage alone, the equitable liability rule should be applied in addition to the fault liability system, requiring participants without gross negligence to share the loss of the victim.

Article 1195 of the Civil Code stipulates the “notice deletion” rule in the field of online infringement.It belongs to the Norms of Anspruchsgrundlage.The first two clauses and the third clause constitute independent Anspruchsgrundlage respectively.In terms of its relationship with Article 1197, this provision constitutes a special circumstance under Article 1197.Only through effective notification can the obligation to take necessary measures be derived.The necessary measures are not limited to deleting, blocking, and disconnecting links.The preliminary evidence of infringement and network service types have a substantial impact on the determination of such behavioral obligations.The timeliness of taking measures can be comprehensively judged based on factors such as the type and nature of network services, the accuracy of notifications, the degree of certainty of infringement, and the type and degree of infringement of rights and interests.The principle of attribution of liability for erroneous notification is also the principle of fault liability, and the forms of fault of the perpetrator of erroneous notification include intention and negligence.The contribution and degree of fault in causal relationships have a significant impact on determining the scope of compensation for damages.